Split personality – National Inventor’s Hall of Fame exhibit shows 1965, 2015 Mustangs side by side

Ever wonder exactly how the cabin of a 1965 Ford Mustang convertible stacks up against the inside of its 2015 equivalent? Ever consider how many patents go into creating a new automobile, versus 50 years ago? Thanks to sponsorship from the Ford Motor Company, a new permanent exhibit at the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame in Alexandria, Virginia, answers these questions and more by parking a cutaway ’65 Mustang convertible next to a cutaway ’15 model.

To allay the fears of collectors, no 1965 Mustangs were harmed in the making of the Intellectual Property Power exhibit, which relied on Ford-licensed reproduction body panels, chassis parts and interior components to create the display (further allowing the museum to explain the merits of licensing and intellectual property patents). Both the 1965 car (in left-hand drive) and the 2015 car (in right-hand drive, as currently built for a variety of export markets) are cut lengthwise to approximately 60-percent of their width, allowing children and adults to experience more of the driver’s perspective. From the front, it’s easy to see how much the Mustang has grown over the past five decades, but the display ends ahead of the rear wheels, preventing side-by-side comparison of the entire car.

The exhibit is also meant to inform visitors how much the automotive development process has changed over the past 50 years. At launch, the original Mustang had no patents (or filed patent applications) relating to its styling, as Ford didn’t see the sense of expending the effort to file the paperwork on a car that might have been a commercial failure. Only after the Mustang had proven itself in the marketplace did the automaker file patent applications on the Mustang’s designs; by comparison, the 2015 Mustang convertible had amassed 36 patents relating to styling alone before it even hit the market.

The display will allow visitors to sit in the cars and play with things like the AM radio (or touch-screen infotainment system in the 2015 car), shifter, steering wheel and pedals. Both cars have recordings of engine sounds, meaning that enthusiasts will get to compare the 1965 car’s 289 V-8 against the 2015 car’s 5.0-liter V-8 to see which one really sounds better. Patents related to automotive technology are also highlighted, giving visitors a sense of how much more complex it is to design and build vehicles for today’s global market.

The display, which also highlights Ford founder Henry Ford, was created by Classic Design Concepts, and opened to the public on May 4. The National Inventors Hall of Fame is located in the Madison Building on the campus of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia. For more information on the museum and its exhibits, visit Invent.org.

Kurt Ernstsays:

May 6, 2016 7:20 am

JIMBOsays:

May 6, 2016 9:52 pm

italianironsays:

May 5, 2016 4:07 pm

This splendid display gives me the occasion to talk about a thing I was worried to say up until now : maybe I will be accused of heresy , but am I the only one all the whole world to think the latest galopping horse’s incarnation looks like nothing coming from Ford , but rather from Kia , Hyundai , Nissan and so on ? The original ‘Stang could be considered Vignale-bodied , Ghia-bodied , Pinin-bodied , but still an unmistakable and splendidly American Ford product because of the dimensions and proportions ( the overall width especially ) . Now , we have been offered probably the best Mustang ever , in terms of all those things INSIDE the body , yet the body itself seems ( to me , at least ) lacking that American personality so admired since April 15 1964 ( even Mustang II , like it or not , was unmistakably and unassuming Ford Detroit , not worthing much in terms of sports appeal , yet something distinct) ; now we are talking about “split personality” , yet , weren’t it for that grille badge and the two threesected taillights , we would be deal with an Aston Martin-inspired grille mated to an Euro look body and an English-conceived sports car roof : all truly nice elements , nicely blended together , but , for me , good with many other badges too . A Mustang ? Yes . A Ford ? Rather less so .
Disclaimer : it is only an opinion of mine…

Joe Essidsays:

May 5, 2016 9:45 pm

No, you are not alone. I had the chance to buy a Mustang GT ragtop in 2009 and said no. I felt that the 2005-09 redo was the most impressive of the reimagined cars, but the interior was subpar. We’ve a GT-500 in the family, a 2011 (I think) and while it’s an amazing ride, it’s just not what I like in a Mustang.

The newest car has a really nice interior but the exterior really disappointed me. It is a fine-looking international car, and it appeals well to the Millennial drivers I know who are “into cars.” But Ford’s pony lost its soul for this old geezer who prefers the ’67-’69s above any others before or since (with early Fox Bodies coming in second place).

If I want a European-looking or Japanese-looking car, and I do like foreign cars, I’ll buy one. Or a Ford Fusion, a sedan that I think really got it right.

John Lumasays:

May 5, 2016 10:18 pm

I agree, italianiron. Our current Stang, no matter how sleek overall, is not as distinctive today as the original was in its day. Of course, it’s “originality” problem today is also because, like Porsche’s over the years — the same slow design evolution has been around for half a century! So we’re used to it. The other problem I have, which this cutaway disguises, is how much bigger our current version looks when parked next to the original. Quite a size difference! Mustang heritage here is great, but not nearly as elegant or striking.

'65 Stang Ownersays:

May 5, 2016 10:25 pm

I agree. The first time I saw a new Mustang it was passing me on the highway and I thought it was a pretty cool looking Mazda or Hyundai Tiburon. It just doesn’t have that “American car” look like the Camaro (or the Canadian built Challenger).

milson fialhosays:

May 6, 2016 1:44 am

SCOTT NJsays:

May 6, 2016 9:21 am

You are so on the mark on this. It has gotten too bland and blah. The new Mustang looks too generic.
Used to be in the 50’s and 60’s that a good new design was introduced and then evolved in a year or two such that too much heavy chrome was added obliterating the design. Now days a new good clean exterior design just doesn’t come along that often. And the Mustang design seems just another sporty car. This is similiar to every SUV looking like all the rest.
GM took a big risk making the Corvette look too much like a Camaro, but they did take the risk and in a bold way. The result was somewhat polarizing but they carried it off. There is no doubt it is a Corvette.
What is needed in the Mustang exterior design is less bland conformism and more distinctive iconic Mustang personality. The size has gotten too big as can be seen in the side by side. And if the rear was added the difference would be more obvious.
Shrink the car by using more sophisticated suspension design allowing the hood and trunk to be lower. Get the side profile more like the 64, and length also similar. Use a safety cage like a Smart car to provide the occupant protection. Under the hood shrink the weight and size with a smaller displacement turbo engines, like a 2.6 liter camless V8. It has to have a V8 of course for the Mustang sound. A convertible with roll bar linked to the windshield frame.
Be bold not boring.

italianironsays:

May 6, 2016 1:02 pm

I wish to thank everybody for the comments and the idea-sharing , I was afraid I had said something too harsh , yet I saw there were other gents thinking that putting a bit more “soul” into the current Mustang ( or , simply , a bit more ‘Stang “character” over its shape ) could be a nice and helpful touch .
Thanks again.

Kurt Ernstsays:

May 6, 2016 1:32 pm

Italianiron, for the record I agree with you as well. I was in love with the previous generation of Mustang, built from 2005-2014, but the latest car does nothing for me.

In 2011 I attended a Ford event in Michigan, and after they shuffled all of us journalist types into a closed room, J Mays revealed a concept (in photos only, since the actual car had already been shipped to Germany for the Frankfurt Motor Show) dubbed the Evos. It was, at the time, jaw-dropping, and a radical departure from anything Ford had penned in the past. J told us that we’d see something like it, design-wise, in production, and in 2013 the Ford Fusion mid-size sedan debuted. Two years later, Ford introduced the new Mustang, which the most cynical in the business quickly referred to as the “two-door Fusion.”

As a sport coupe sold under a new name, the Evos’s styling would have been pleasing. As a Mustang, I’m just not a fan.

italianironsays:

May 6, 2016 5:18 pm

Thanks Kurt , your opinion about the Evos is very similar to mine too . I always thought it would work truly well as an heir to all those Australian Falcon GT hardtops of the Seventies , or , even as a 21st century Probe , but not as a Mustang ….

ArekMassays:

May 6, 2016 5:19 pm

I agree with you. My theory is that the personality of any car is closely tied to what it meant during its earliest incarnations. I like the new Corvettes, for example, but my mind associates Vette personality to the late C1, C2 and early C3s when they were unique and shook up the American sports car world. Same thought with Mustangs, Camaros, etc. I do credit Mustang, Camaro and Challenger with trying to revive the original styling personality, but only give them a C grade. To me, all three are heavy, high, claustrophobic and ungainly compared to the originals. I think something’s been lost between the era with the classic designers/design houses with their genius leaders and slide rules, and today with genericized platforms with Market study-derived CAD designs. I’d buy a Mustang if it weren’t for the too-high cowl and beltline, pillbox visibility, bulbous hood and boy-racer face. The earlier Mustangs had none of these flaws.

Bruce T.says:

May 5, 2016 4:19 pm

Jsays:

May 6, 2016 2:05 am

Italianiron,
I respect your opinion, and know many people agree to some extent or another. This has been the case since the ’15 was introduced. I personally like the new design, and do recognise it as an American/Ford car. My reason for preferring my ’14 is not the exterior design but the increasing digital clutter in the cockpit.
I may be wrong, but from what I recall the ’65 has an actual back seat instead of the parcel shelf in later models.
Thanks for your thoughtful, thorough and articulate post.

Joe Essidsays:

May 5, 2016 5:07 pm

starsailingsays:

May 5, 2016 6:07 pm

Timely article. After re reading the article on the 66 GT350 this a.m. I headed out in my red 2004 Ford Mustang V6 on a drive thinking about the comparison of my Mustang versus the 60’s Mustang. Value of both in terms of what you get for the money Equal. Working on the car, pretty basic, all out in the open, easy to repair/maintain, parts cheap and plenty. Ladies at the coffee shop like it, and cops follow me because it is red and a Mustang. V6 as quick or quicker as base 60’s 289. Room in interior about the same all around. Seeing a 2004 or a 66 Mustang coming down the road….the brain quickly says Mustang when coming into view. Would I rather want a 66 2+2 fast back? Yes…..Am I satisfied for what I had to spend and what I got in return for the 2004? Yes…..Looking at all the 65-66 fastbacks that were made and sold….versus the ridiculous price people are asking for PRE restored fastbacks now……I don’t think the condition matches the price. Looking at above New Mustang VS the old…..I just want a new Mustang w/out all the techno garbage….I just want to drive and enjoy the view in a Mustang. If I wanted to operate massive computer gizmos….I would sit at my desk and get on the computer and play driving games…..Ergo my finding is older Mustangs fit the basic driving needs and urges….
Note: I just went to change serpentine belt, idler pulley and Belt tensioner on the 2004 V6. Found out I need a special tool to remove the belt tensioner assembly. Instead of a simple bolt head to remove, there was a recessed star head bolt in it’s place. Since I didn’t have one of those size tools, I didn’t replace the tensioner. Ford engineering (as other MFGs makes) redesign for profit for Ford to fix and replace if you don’t have the specialty tool. I will pick up the star socket tool, still cheaper than bringing to someplace to fix at high prices. When engineering for profit supersedes over ease of maintenance ….the customer loses value. Some will say the star bolt was more practical during assembly of vehicle…..I reckon not! Old Wildfire was bought for simple surefooted trail riding across them thar plains and through the mountains…not for some fancy pants dressage an high falootin chicanes at Laguna or Lemans…
(Kidding ….I did not name my red Mustang “Wildfire”, not yet anyways. )

Bob Croslinsays:

May 7, 2016 10:26 am

adam bahmsays:

May 5, 2016 11:26 pm

This is a good illustration of how steroid over-use can turn a nice face into a freak. It’s too fat, bulky, padded, and the wind shield is slanted too much. I wouldn’t even put white-walls on it. One last comment, I like to see the engine when I open the hood, not a sea of plastic.

Sal Pugliesesays:

May 5, 2016 11:58 pm

Brian Austinsays:

May 7, 2016 12:20 am

Lousays:

May 6, 2016 12:04 am

That is a pretty cool display. The one thing that stands out to me, the new cars, Challenger, Mustang, Camaro just don’t have the sleek look and personality of the originals. They all are so round and bubble shaped, with smooth edges and some slab sides. The originals are so much better proportioned and sexier. Of course they give up the look for safety so It is understandable.

May 6, 2016 12:56 am

Joe Essidsays:

May 6, 2016 8:47 am

brucesays:

May 6, 2016 9:04 am

Original Challenger styling was lean, hungry, low, fast. Today’s version is like the big lump they started with before they cut away all the extra clay and made it a Challenger. Camaro doesn’t look anything like a Camaro, so no comment.
Mustang interior certainly IS far better, and the exterior still echos the DNA, even though I think it’s lumpy.
911 is still 911, but my Ye Olde Porsche is a fun sportscar, while the far superior new one is a massive, beastly, technology showcase, where engineers forgot to include “fun”… a stripper base Cayman is where the fun is now.

Johnny Osays:

May 6, 2016 10:01 am

Gotta disagree with you, I have a new and old Challenger, and they share many of the styling cues when sitting next to each other, unlike the Mustang and Camaro. Yes, it’s bigger due to safety regs, and no, it’s not as cool as the old one, but it’s so much better in many ways.

brucesays:

May 9, 2016 3:15 pm

Well yeah it’s an infinitely better car, no doubt. My 70 440 RT SE convertible was a very cool POS that broke everything and drank Sunoco 260 like a drunken sailor and I sold it for peanuts. Today, it’s a collector’s dream. The new one has that DNA, for sure, but the proportions just seem off somehow unless it’s lowered a good bit. Same with the Mustang, but they’re gradually making the Mustang look better with every minor revision.

Timsays:

May 6, 2016 9:31 am

I have to disagree about the new Mustangs having lost their soul. I have an ’09 Shelby and I think they look Great. Just like our kids take on a little of mom and a little of pop and then grow into something with a little of their own the Mustang has too. I wouldn’t want the new ones to look too similar to the older units. I have a car that isn’t the fastest of even the new Mustangs but it still delivers a butt puckering ride if you get your foot deep enough into it. No mistake what’s coming at you either and to do all this and get 22 mph to boot (if you keep your foot out of it). Nothing is static, if you aren’t moving forward you’re moving backward.

OldCarMansays:

May 6, 2016 10:30 am

All the car companies want to create a Mustang again, with all of the attendant success.
The formula is real simple. Make it distinctive. American distinctive.
Make it actually fit 4 adults.
Price it really reasonable to start.
Let the customer design, build, & option it to what they want, not “Product Planning”!

Unfortunately, you still have all of the unfunded Fed & Insurance Industry requirements, which always hurt the aesthetics, but that’s life in the US.

vinmurphsays:

May 6, 2016 10:41 am

Dave Bolinsays:

May 6, 2016 11:29 am

I have to confess I wasn’t a big fan of the Mustang when it came out in ’64. While part of that was my foreign-car bias and part “Chevy-guy” inclination, I just wasn’t impressed with the execution Ford with the design. When “Car and Driver” said the hood fit at the front “…like the lid on Mom’s cheapest saucepan” I agreed but also thought that the rest of the car was pretty tinny also (I was a Volvo man and ANYTHING other than a Mercedes seemed tinny compared to them). The fact that it was essentially a Falcon in fancy clothes didn’t help either. But time passes and we all change both physically and in attitude (if we’re lucky) and the Mustang has done both. It is now a more competent motorcar than it was and that pleases me but it is also larger and more complex and that does not. While we probably will never see the simplicity of those sixties pony-cars again (when was the last time you could see the ground below while looking into an engine bay?), the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger could all profit by making a smaller shadow. BUT none of them could ever hold four adults (even without comfort) at such dimensions and that illusion of practicality is what makes them palatable to the huge pool of buyers who are more into image than lap times and those are the people who made the first Mustangs and Camaros market successes.
Even with that said, I’d still like to see the new Mustang with a notchback-hardtop version like the first ones had!

Maestro1says:

May 6, 2016 12:14 pm

Most everyone has expressed my opinion of the new Mustangs so i won’t bore all with a repeat. But the cars are fat and ugly with too much technology that I resent. I also think that the latest design is representative of a declining culture.

Dougsays:

May 6, 2016 12:34 pm

Stoneysays:

May 6, 2016 1:35 pm

If you haven’t driven a 2016 Mustang, you should-even if its the V6 you’ll be impressed. The power and the handling are better than they’ve ever been. FWIW Ford Motor Company is a business, and they need to build what sells as well as appeals to the purists. For the first time in a long time the Mustang is selling overseas which is a good thing. As for me (a Mustang owner since 2001) I’d prefer that Ford just make a great car in every way than try to do the retro thing which IMO jumped the shark a long time ago.

John Waldronsays:

May 6, 2016 5:23 pm

Although I restored and owned a 1965 notchback and 1967 convertible Mustang, I spent 8 years restoring a 144 CI straight six 1/63 Falcon Tudor Sedan. I am still shocked by what little press and admiration the Father (and Mother) of the Mustang receives, whether going down the road or parked anywhere. Never could understand that, as Ford sold the first gen. Falcon tooling to Argentina so as to share tooling with the ’64 and ’65 Mustangs, and as a result, many first gen. Falcons were never restored. Plus, their production numbers were relatively low compared to the ‘Stang and, being a cheap car, many were just driven into the ground. Heck, my plain Jane 1/63 Tudor numbered only around 70K produced for that 1963 and Falcon as a whole still outsold the Corvair and Valiant. Jay Leno has a’63 V-8 Falcon, FWIW. My completely restored Falcon is for sale in Hemmings, as I need to buy a newer car, but just sayin’ guys-know the Mustang roots! My dollars worth-John in Texas

Ricksays:

May 6, 2016 7:16 pm

I guess I’m the odd man out because I think the new Mustang is the best looking car on the road. I think the stylist got it completely right. No matter what angle I look at, the newest version of the Mustang is the best. With the exception of the 64 1/2-66 models, the latest version of the Mustang is the best.

David A Johnsonsays:

May 6, 2016 9:24 pm

Jim Vsays:

May 7, 2016 8:04 am

I think that this does really illustrate the contrast well.. It’s one thing to look at the cars going down the road individually, but to see them this way really shows the contrast well, especially to those that aren’t “car people”. I agree with most of the points posted above. I prefer them lean and simple. I’ve owned several early Musangs, my favorite being the ’69’s. But I really like the 05-14 Mustangs, and to me there is no mistaking that it’s a Mustang. I’d buy one if the budget ever allows. The new car does look good from the back though, with the tail lights looking very much like a Mustang.

Michael Birdensays:

May 7, 2016 6:30 pm

Sorry to all the old timers out there but my 2011 GT rocks! It’s better than my ’07 was and way better than the ’66 that I owned in high school. It’s nice to go back to the past , but you can’t live there.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

May 8, 2016 12:20 pm

Michael, car people generally have a closer affinity to the vehicles of their youth. When you’re old and grey like me [trust me, it happens to us all] and cars drive themselves and [likely] no longer use rubber tires, you’ll be expounding the greatness of your generation’s 2011 Mustang.

P.S. Don’t get me wrong, I’m just a couple years shy of 70 but really LIKE the new Mustang styling [FoMoCo did a great job keeping the Mustang flavor.] But, having test driven several newer model Mustang’s I would likely never own one as the view from the driver’s seat is like a barge [NO OFFENSE INTENDED] and I would have a difficult time driving one. I have two sons, both in their 20s and both over six foot tall, who also find aiming the Mustang’s large bow challenging…or maybe they just told me that to make me feel better…LOL.

tk-65says:

May 7, 2016 9:57 pm

The original Mustang was based on the Falcon. A compact loss leader, with tiny brakes, primitive suspension, and nothing in power besides a basic V8. The 65 Mustang had no crash crumple zones, no door impact braces, bumpers in name only, along with the stated Falcon parts. Can someone please explain to me how this car has become romanticized? Carrol Shelby himself called it a secretaries car. The new Mustang has to conform to government regulations. You cant package everything the government requires and the customer demands into a tin can which was the original Mustang. The car that rotted two years after purchase. The car that’s GAS TANK doubled as the trunk floor. The new Mustang handles, goess, stops, and gets better gas mileage with less emissions than any previous Mustang. Period. And looks damn good doing it. Come on you guys, this revisionist history and hate towards the new car is borderline insane.